Why Did Bush Not Act on Sept 11?

'America is under attack'
Sarasota, Florida, 11 September 2001
The moment the US Commander-in-Chief
didn't burst into action

"The Independent in London questions how Bush could claim in two public appearances to have seen the first plane hit the first tower long before any such TV footage was broadcast. The paper also asks why Dubya continued sitting with elementary school students after the second tower was hit and he'd been told, 'America is under attack.' [That was no later than 9:05 a.m. on Sept 11, nlpwessex] Very mysterious, when standard procedure for such a situation is to whisk the president away to safety. Unless -- and here is the nub -- unless he knew something more than we did that morning. As the Independent asked, 'What television station was HE watching?'.."
The truth is out there ... right?
Vancouver Sun, February 23, 2002
(see confirmation of this in the White House's own press release 4 Dec 2001- click here)

"I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff.... walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack.' ... I tried to get as many facts as I could... And so, I got on the phone from Air Force One, asking to find out the facts..... I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-In-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening."
George Bush, White House Press Release, 4 Dec 2001

Report by Washington Post as to When Bush Got to Air Force One

"After Bush's statement at Booker Elementary School, his motorcade raced back to Sarasota Bradenton International Airport. As Bush boarded Air Force One, a Secret Service agent, showing a trace of nervousness, said, 'Mr. President, we need you to get seated as soon as possible.' The plane accelerated down the runway and then almost stood on its tail as it climbed rapidly out of the airport. It was 9:55 a.m."
Washington Post 27 January 2002
(Washington Post report "based on interviews with the principals involved in the decision-making, including the president, the vice president and many other key officials inside the administration and out. The interviews were supplemented by notes of NSC [National Security Council] meetings made available to The Washington Post, along with notes taken by several participants.... The president, the White House staff and senior Cabinet officers responded in detail to questions and requests.")

What Are These People Capable Of?

"African Americans were kept away from the polls [in the 2000 Presidential election], they were intimidated at the polls. I write about this in my book, about how Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush, the year before, hired a private firm to go through the rolls to try to take as many African-American names as possible off the voter rolls in Florida. It is an outrageous, disgusting story that you should read about if you haven’t read about it elsewhere already. It will sicken you. People died for this right to vote and they have so abused it. To me at this point, anybody who would so knowingly, illegitimately take control of our White House, what else are they capable of?....."
Michael Moore, Author of America's No1 best selling book this spring, 'Stupid White Men'
Speech 4 March 2002 at the prestigious Commonwealth Club of California
America's oldest and largest public affairs forum
(George Bush and the Head of the FBI have both since given addresses of their own to this club)

"The most detailed analysis yet of the contested Florida votes from last year's presidential election - with the potential to question President George Bush's legitimacy - is being withheld by the news organisations that commissioned it. Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable in the 'hanging chad' chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the end of August. The study was commissioned early this year by a consortium including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times and the broadcaster CNN. The cost was more than $A2million. Now, however, spokesmen for the consortium say that they decided to postpone the story of the analysis by the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago for lack of resources and lack of interest in the face of the enormous story after the September 11 attacks."
Media suppress the news that Bush lost election to Gore
Sydney Morning Herald, 22 October 2001

"A federal judge has approved a settlement between Leon County and civil rights groups that sued over widespread voting problems in the 2000 presidential election in Florida..... Under the settlement, both sides will work to restore voters who were wrongly removed from voters lists in the 2000 election."
Quietly Florida Admits 2000 Election Fraud
Associated Press, April 26, 2002

However, it is only the President himself who may subsequently authorise the escalation of a standard intercept into a shoot-down. This was confirmed by CNN in October 1999 when it reported on the previous military interception of a private Learjet owned by US golfer Payne Stewart. The jet had inexplicably run off-course with apparently no pilot at the helm, and eventually crashed in an unpopulated area after running out of fuel. The CNN report includes the following commentary:

"....'But even if an unguided plane were on a collision course with the center of a major city, military planes could not take aim and pull the trigger unless they received permission from the White House because only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down. 'If the president's advisors had advised him that this airplane was a threat to either the aviation system, our national security, or populations on the ground, they might have been justified to make that kind of a decision,' said Susan Coughlin, an aviation analyst for CNN.... "

Particularly with the benefit of the experience of this non-hostile Learjet 'dress-rehearsal' just two years previously, it is difficult to imagine circumstances which might justify such a shoot-down more fully than those which arose on Sept 11. This would certainly be the case had the hijacked planes first failed to respond to non-aggressive standard intercepts aimed at achieving a peaceful end to the emergencies prior to the President having to take a more drastic decision. In the event not even the non-aggressive measures were executed.

By 9.05 am on Sept 11 the potential threat to populations on the ground was self-evident to people across the entire globe, who by then were watching matters live on TV. It was at this point that the President was advised by his Chief of Staff that "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack". The president was seated in a meeting with school children in Sarasota, Florida. "I made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war" the president later claimed.

However, despite being the only person with the power to take the most direct action in the matter the President remained in the Florida classroom. The President allowed the school children to continue reading to him a story about a pet goat as the third plane, already hijacked and visible on primary radar, made its way towards the Capital of the United Sates and the nation's military command centre, the Pentagon. As these events unfolded further US Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (someone whose testimony might prove 'interesting' in an inquiry into the events of Sept 11) was reportedly "on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations centre, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds" as the Washington Post confirmed 27 January 2002 .

Whereas Bush had continued with his children's story session when informed that America was under attack, on hearing the same news UK Prime Minister Tony Blair immediately cancelled a speech he was about to deliver to the TUC in Brighton (a speech previously described by the BBC as being of 'crucial' importance to his political programme), in order that he could return to London to take action. Although potentially also at risk, Blair's country was not even under attack.

According to the BBC: "Union delegates at the TUC conference in Brighton were waiting for Tony Blair's keynote speech when the whisper started going around the hall. At first, few believed the claim that terrorists had bombed the world trade centre in New York.....Tony Blair was quickly briefed on the horror and made an instant, instinctive and inevitable decision to cancel his speech. He was then rushed back to London to chair a crisis cabinet committee meeting... Almost immediately the TUC conference was also suspended...."

Apparently what was inevitable for the no-attack British Prime Minister on Sept 11 was not inevitable for the 'make-no-mistake' US President.

Clearly the action necessary to manage the "threat to either the aviation system, ..... national security, or populations on the ground" as highlighted in the 1999 CNN Learjet report was not taken by the President on Sept 11. This was despite Bush being told that "America is under attack" during his apparently indispensable meeting with the school kids.

Why was that? And why did the rest of the air security system simultaneously not implement even non-aggressive standard hijack intercept procedures in time? In particular, and most inexplicably of all, why was Flight 77 allowed to fly straight into the very Pentagon itself after a hijack of up to 50 minutes or more on Sept 11?

As the London Daily Telegraph incredulously described it on 16 September, after reciting various FAA/NORAD excuses, the Pentagon is "America's most obvious military bullseye" and yet "...in no case was there apparently enough time after the FAA's warning for fighter planes to reach the hijacked airliners. More puzzling, there were 45 minutes between air traffic controllers losing contact with the third airliner, which took off from Dulles airport just outside Washington, and its crash on to the Pentagon."

The situation becomes even more questionable in the light of subsequent remarks by Vice President Cheney in relation to the fourth plane which came down in Pennsylvania as reported in the Daily Mirror 17 September:

"If a plane wouldn't pay any attention to instructions to move away from the city, as a last resort our pilots were authorised to take them out. People say that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of civilians captured by terrorists and are you going to shoot it down and kill all those Americans on board? Would we have been justified in doing it? I think we would have. As it turned out, we did not have to execute on that authorisation. But there were a few moments when we thought we might." (But see footnote as to significant doubts about this official line concerning the fate of United Airlines Flight 93.)

So what about the previous three planes on Sept 11 then, Mr Vice President? The head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, himself confirmed in a speech given in San Francisco 19 April 2002 that his team was already alert to the possibility of a terrorist attack once the first hit on the World Trade Centre had taken place: "We rushed down to the FBI's command center, hoping it had been a terrible accident but fearing the worst. Minutes later, we watched in horror as a plane hit the second tower."

The third plane on Sept 11 was hijacked for the best part of an hour before it hit the Pentagon. Why was shoot-down authority, as a necessary last-resort contingency option, issued only after the Pentagon itself had been hit (as is discussed in more detail below)? Why was authorisation not given immediately after the strikes on the World Trade Centre, when even Cheney himself later acknowledged that at that point there was "a clear understanding" that once a plane was hijacked "it was a weapon."? (also see below).

"The first crash had changed everything; the second changed it again. Anyone who thought the first was an accident now knew better.... Now this felt like a war.... At the moment the second plane was slamming into the south tower, President Bush was being introduced to the second-graders of Emma E. Booker Elementary in Sarasota, Fla. When he arrived at the school he had been whisked into a holding room: National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice needed to speak to him. But he soon appeared in the classroom and listened appreciatively as the children went through their reading drill. As he was getting ready to pose for pictures with the teachers and kids, chief of staff Andy Card entered the room, walked over to the President and whispered in his right ear. The President's face became visibly tense and serious, but then he resumed his interaction with the class. 'Really good, readers, whew!' he told them. 'These must be sixth-graders!' Meanwhile, in the room where Bush was scheduled to give his remarks, about 200 people, including local officials, school personnel and students, waited under the hot lights... The President finally entered, about 35 minutes late, and made his brief comments... Meanwhile the bomb dogs took a few extra passes through Air Force One, and an extra fighter escort was added.... The aircraft carriers U.S.S John Kennedy and U.S.S. George Washington took up positions off the East Coast ." (The latter observation - to say nothing of the inactivity of Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington - is itself also an interesting element given that it was two east coast cities that were not provided with much needed air cover on Sept 11. 'I want to get though to the White House to reiterate that we need air cover' said New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to Police Commissioner Bernard Kerick at the World Trade Centre just after the second attack, as reported in Time Magazine, 7 January 2002, European Edition p65. Why did he say 'reiterate' ? Reiterate to whom?)

As Vice President Dick Cheney made clear in a subsequent report in the Washington Post 27 January 2002: "You're asking American pilots to fire on a commercial airliner full of civilians. On the other hand, you had directly in front of me what had happened to the World Trade Center, and a clear understanding that once the plane was hijacked, it was a weapon." Quite.

As if failure to act immediately on that recognition (obvious to any fool informed of the second strike from 9.03 am onwards) was not bad enough, the same press report confirms that Bush did not issue the necessary shoot-down authority until after a much later telephone consultation with Cheney. Astonishingly that conversation took place no earlier than 9:55 am as confirmed in the same Washington Post article:

"[Air Force One] accelerated down the runway [in Florida] and then almost stood on its tail as it climbed rapidly out of the airport. It was 9:55 a.m. Once airborne, Bush spoke again to Cheney, who said the combat air patrol needed rules of engagement if pilots encountered an aircraft that might be under the control of hijackers. [This is incorrect as standard rules of engagement were already well established, as documented by FAA/NORAD protocols. Only a shoot-down requires additional authority, nlpwessex.] Cheney recommended that Bush authorize the military to shoot down any such civilian airliners - as momentous a decision as the president was asked to make in those first hours. ...'I said, ‘You bet,’ ' Bush recalled. 'We had a little discussion, but not much.'..."

So it is the Washington Post which confirms that it was Cheney who was giving the 'big advice' that day, and that he and Bush finally got round to having 'a little discussion' of this issue only long after the school kids' reading session was safely completed. They finally got round to it more than an hour-and-a-half after air traffic controllers knew hijackings were probably underway and more than an hour after the first strike on the World Trade Centre.

By stark contrast both the British and Russian Governments have since confirmed their ability to deal with such an emergency in a matter of minutes even with no post-Sept 11 changes to their procedures (see press reports at bottom of page).

Not surprisingly, therefore, people like US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney now want a thorough investigation into the events surrounding Sept 11. If and when such an investigation goes ahead Bush's discussions with his advisers on the day need to be a key focus of attention.

When Chief of Staff Andy Card interrupted the Florida Classroom session did he simply, as claimed, whisper in the President's ear "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack". Period. Or did he have time to add something along the lines of "But stay put with the kids Mr President, Cheney is dealing with it. He'll call you later."?

Since Sept 11 Cheney has threatened the leader of the Senate should he press for a full inquiry, thereby adding further to the speculation concerning the role of the Vice President on that fateful day. Certainly establishing the actions of the man whose 'true role' in the Bush administration the Washington Post has since described as 'the power behind the throne' is going to be essential.

On Sept 11 it was Cheney who was sitting in charge of the White House - both as Vice President and as an experienced former head of the Pentagon under the previous Bush administration - as the attacks proceeded in almost clockwork type fashion without formal hindrance. CNN had previously referred to opinion citing Cheney as 'perhaps the most influential and powerful vice president in modern history.'

The degree to which Bush himself was fully in charge on the day is open to further question as the following excerpt from Time magazine 24 September implies: "[On Sept 11] After dividing the work among his closest aides, Bush instructed a military operator to place a call from Air Force One to the last American who had to grapple with the decision of whether and how to go to war. When his father came on the line, Bush cleared the cabin so they could confer privately."

Indeed the role of Bush senior as former President, former Vice President, former Director of the CIA, and father to the current President is interesting from an number of perspectives. According to his own account Bush junior had immediately decided to embark on what has since become known as the 'war-against-terrorism' back in the Florida classroom earlier that morning. He therefore took the decision with the benefit of no post-event dialogue with any colleague. On the face of it this was a highly out-of-character moment for the 'delegator' President who usually relies heavily on advice from others when making major decisions. (This is especially so on foreign affairs where he is generally acknowledged to be particularly ignorant. Indeed when the Saudis arrived in Texas at the end of April to discuss with Bush the Middle East crisis the New York Times reported in mocking fashion that "Poppy and Cheney took over the show", referring to Bush's father and the Vice President).

How is it, in fact, that Bush could later claim in an interview included in a White House press release dated 4 December 2001 to have seen the first plane - yes, the first plane - hit the World Trade Centre on a TV before he went in to see the kids in the Florida classroom ? No public TV channel in the world had any footage at that time of the first strike, which at least for them was a completely unexpected event. As one press report subsequently put it "What television station was HE watching?".

At the same time as confirming that the main evidence linking Iraq to Sept 11 has now been discredited, the current European edition of Time magazine (13 May, p38) reminds its readers that "From the moment he took office, Bush has made noises about finishing the job his father started". The magazine also reveals the desperate nature of the efforts made by the Bush administration to create a pretext for doing this. According to Time "[Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty handed."

The rapidly declared 'war-against-terrorism' neatly serves the obvious and primary quest-for-oil objectives of US energy and foreign policy. The inconsistent way the doctrine is applied is only one element that gives the game away. We are told, for example, that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia where the US already has unrestricted access to the country's oil reserves. There are no visible plans to bomb the Saudis.

None of this, however, is to diminish the significance of other parallel self-serving developments arising out of Bush's decision to engage in global warfare.

Many have commented, for example, on the rise in the financial fortunes since Sept 11 of the Carlyle Group, a multi-billion dollar private equity firm with substantial defence sector investments, and for whom the President's father has acted as a roving global 'ambassador'. He has been supported in this role by a variety of others from ealier Bush/Reagan administrations including former Defence Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA Frank Carlucci, and former Secretary of State James Baker. Carlucci is Chairman and Chief Executive of Carlyle. He is also chairman of the advisory board of the influential Rand Centre for Middle East Public Policy whose research it claims reaches "the highest levels of government".

According to 'The Nation' Carlyle representatives do "business in 55 countries and specialize in investing in private sectors heavily affected by government change. Which, in simple terms, means they buy smaller companies in areas where they can predict public policy, then sell them for bigger profits."

Others who have worked as advisers to Carlyle include former White House budget chief Dick Darman; head of the Federal Communications Commission William Kennard; head of the Securities and Exchange Commission Arthur Levitt; treasurer and chief investment officer of the World Bank and husband of Bush biographer Afsaneh Beschloss; former British prime minister John Major (who has his own separate arms trade corruption cover-up allegations to deal with as reported by the BBC 28 April 2002); former chairman of China's Securities Regulatory Commission, Liu Hong-Ru; former head of Indonesia's Central Bank, Arifin Siregar; former Philippines president Fidel Ramos; former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun; and Thailand's current Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (who resigned from the fund before taking office just over a year ago).

Asia Times reported 20 March 2002 that "Carlyle's forte is not only money-making. Its executives also influence policy - sometimes profoundly. Last week Carlucci, who is chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council, a coalition of US multinationals doing business in Taiwan, invited Tang Yiau-ming, Taiwan's defense minister, to attend a closed-door summit of US and Taiwanese defense officials sponsored by the council and key US military contractors, including Carlyle's United Defense Industries. Tang's visit, which was capped by a meeting with US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, marked the highest-level defense contacts between Taipei and Washington since diplomatic relations were severed in 1979 - and paralleled President Bush's push to expand arms sales to Taiwan, where Carlyle has significant investments."

Post Sept 11 and the huge inflation in the Pentagon budget that has stemmed from it, Carlyle earned a cool $237 million on a single day selling shares in United Defense Industries alone, the Army's fifth-largest contractor, whilst at the same time still retaining its majority control. The company had been losing money before Carlyle bought it in 1997. Carlyle had since been trying to market United Defense prior to Sept 11 but had achieved no takers according to the Los Angeles Times 10 January 2002. Since Sept 11 United Defense has been the beneficiary of large increases in US defence spending, with full funding for the company's controversial 'Crusader' artillery system being passed by the House and Senate just one day before the company went public.

The London Guardian reported 31 October 2001 that "Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military... Bush [Snr] gives speeches for the company and is paid with stakes in the firm's investments, believed to be worth at least $80,000 per appearance..... When Carlucci arrived there in 1989, he brought with him a phalanx of former subordinates from the CIA and the Pentagon, and an awareness of the scale of business a company like Carlyle could do in the corridors and steak-houses of Washington."

Most recently the Los Angles Times reported 3 May that Army Secretary White is being investigated for his alleged lobbying of Congress to support Carlyle's provocatively named 'Crusader' heavy artillery system. This was despite apparent Pentagon plans to abandon the cumbersome howitzer equipment regarded by many as no longer suitable for modern warfare. Although the Los Angles Times reported that he had been persuaded by White to spare the 'Crusader' system from cuts, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has since disowned the programme. Does this indicate possible awareness on Rumsfeld's part that the emerging scandal of Carlyle's relationship with the Bush Administration may be getting too close to the surface following Mckinney's rocking of the boat, and that it could take any number of people down with it in addition to White? Rumsfeld's own hands may not be as clean as he would like.

Correspondence between Rumsfeld and Carlucci recently unearthed by the 'public interest' law firm Judicial Watch reveals the key role that the Carlyle chief is developing in advising the US government on defence spending. A letter on Carlyle stationary from Carlucci dated 15 February reveals that he and former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry (himself now a board member of government defence and intelligence contractor Anteon) had lunch with Rumsfeld earlier this year to discuss "the need for reductions in the infrastructure of the Department [of Defense] and how that might best be done."

That is not a reference to reducing the defence budget. Everyone knows that is going into orbit. Most probably it means placing a greater amount of Defense Department operations with private sector contractors. Rumsfeld replied to Carlucci's letter stating that "There is no question but that we are going to have to tackle the infrastructure issue. What I may do is ask the two of you to come in and meet with some of the key staff folks who are working on those types of things here in the department. I will be back in touch with you. "

To get a clearer insight into how the taxpayer-funded defence gravy train interfaces with the private sector it is instructive to take a closer look at Vice President Dick Cheney's own twin track career with defence contractors and government. An investigative report published 2 May 2002 by San Francisco based 'CorpWatch' is useful for this purpose. It and other sources confirm the following:

A further report by commentator Paul Stuart confirms that Houston (also the home of Enron) based Brown & Root's Balkan contract work includes the building of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. This is the biggest 'from scratch' foreign US military base built since the Vietnam War and is nearing completion.

Just as with the work now going on in Afghanistan it should come as no surprise to discover that Bondsteel is located close to another energy transit corridor in the planning, in this case the US sponsored Trans-Balkan oil pipeline known as the '8th corridor'. As Stuart points out "The New York based AMBO (Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria Oil) Trans-Balkan pipeline will pump oil from the tankers that bring it across the Black Sea to the Bulgarian oil terminus at Burgas, through Macedonia to the Albanian Adriatic port of Vlore. From there it will be pumped on to huge 300,000 ton tankers and sent on to Europe and the US, bypassing the Bosphorus Straits—the congested and only route out of the Black Sea where tankers are restricted to 150,000 tons." Or in the simpler words of the US Energy Information Administration 'the Balkans are becoming an important transit center for energy supplies from the Black Sea area and beyond to Europe'.

The bogus nature of America's public condemnation of terrorism is graphically illustrated by a Dutch government report published in April confirming that the US had previously been facilitating the use of Hezzbolah and other Islamic terrorists to push back the Serbs during the civil war in Bosnia. A BBC report in June 2001 also confirmed that during the same conflict the US had been secretly arming the Bosniaks (mostly Bosnian Muslims) and Croats, and was bugging UN commanders and diplomats as part of the process.

At any one time over 100 operators from across the spectrum of US intelligence agencies were on the ground in Bosnia. According to the BBC "This intelligence-gathering was aimed as much at the UN as the Serbs, and intelligence was passed directly on to the Bosnian Government." Senior European negotiators believe that the secret role played by the US in the conflict extended the length of the war by two years, resulting in an estimated additional 15,000 dead and nearly 600,000 further refugees.

Whatever the stated 'moral' reason on each occasion, it is clear that America's military interventions overseas are now being driven by its overwhelming economic imperative. Confirmation of this reality was provided to US troops at Camp Bondsteel by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself 5 June 2001: “How much should we spend on the armed services? ...My view is we don’t spend on you, we invest in you. The men and women in the armed services are not a drain on our economic strength. Indeed you safeguard it. You’re not a burden on our economy, you are the critical foundation for growth.”

That's funny Mr Secretary, Sir, because the State Deparment's official position on 'U.S. and NATO Objectives and Interests in Kosovo' back in March 1999 was "to stop the killing and achieve a durable peace that prevents further repression and provides for democratic self-government for the Kosovar people". No mention of the US economy in that document at all, Sir.

Regional overseas conflicts aside, however, experience reveals that it is only when American citizens are led to believe that there is a permanent threat of their being 'under attack' that the full richness and texture of the military-driven gravy train reaches its greatest expression.

To keep this sumptuous feast going does indeed require the constant threat of war - one which the Soviets had so thoroughly provided in previous decades. The new bogus 'war-against-terrorism' now serves to provide the much needed plug to fill the 'missing enemy' gap that the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from the main arena had inconveniently created. In this process, however, the gravy unfortunately goes to the select few whilst others sink further into poverty, both at home and abroad.

With Donald Rumsfeld being forced to admit in February that the Department of Defense is unable to account for $2.3 trillion (yes, trillion) worth of US military transactions the opportunity for abuse is immense. In fact the US defence establishment has not passed a government audit in a decade. Somewhat poignantly CBS News confirmed 29 January that the day before the attacks on America "Rumsfeld promised change [in this situation] but the next day - Sept. 11 - the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten." Impeccable timing, indeed.

According to CBS News Pentagon auditors admit that the US military still cannot account for 25 per cent of what it spends. With the help of post Sept 11 budget ballooning, that amounts to close on $100 billion per year going missing, representing a sum way in excess of any other country's entire defence budget. As a poignant editorial in the New York Times reminded its readers 5 May "Two of the three current [military] service secretaries are former defense industry executives. Mr. White [the army secretary] comes from Enron."

At this point the despotic image conjured up by the words of Dwight Eisenhower's farewell Presidential speech in 1961 suddenly come sharply back into focus: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes....".

Now, some forty years later, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has had the courage to challenge the danger so presciently identified by Eisenhower. In the Washington Post 12 April she called for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had had advance notice of the terrorist attacks on Sept 11 and yet did nothing to prevent them. In the course of presenting her call Mckinney pointedly remarked that 'persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war.' She did not go further than briefly referring to the Carlyle Group, but she might easily also have mentioned Halliburton, including its dubious commercial dealings with Iraq. Or, indeed, she might well have elaborated on the Bush Administration's close relationship with the oil and gas sectors and its extraordinary support for their interests in Afghanistan where Enron was only one of a number of US corporate stakeholders.

The Washington Post comments that McKinney 'seems to have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulating during the past six months among people who believe that the government is partially - or entirely - to blame for last year's attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people.' Following McKinney's call an online poll of 23,000 readers taken by the Atlanta Journal-Consitution found that nearly half believe that 'officials knew it was coming'. Despite - or more likely because of - this surprisingly 'interesting' result the poll has since been withdrawn from the paper's web site.

Whatever the truth lying at the bottom of these murky waters there is a clear prima-facie case to be answered both by Bush and his handlers. Until such time as satisfactory explanations are delivered and verified in an open and accountable fashion the speculation will not stop. The more the situation is resisted the more speculation will grow. No one whose hands are clean has anything to fear from an in-depth inquiry.

For the moment the case for a full investigation is being pursued largely by private citizens all over the globe who are lovers of peace, freedom and truth. They are waiting for the press and their public representatives to start doing the same. Congresswoman McKinney's call for a full inquiry may have started the ball rolling, but most elected officials are still too frightened to make a move.

In the words of President Bush himself in a press interview posted on the White House web site in December: "... I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-In-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening...."

So by the standards of his own post-event assessment of that tragic day back in September do the inactions of President Bush and those who 'manage' him not sound for the moment just a tiny little bit negligent? Or do they even sound, to paraphrase evidence of US government prior-knowledge of the attacks recently presented in a Canadian court of law, like a case of 'Let some happen. Stop the rest.' ?

June 2002 Update
More Information on School Room Episode
Evidence that Bush was pre-briefed

"Most historians see a relationship, in the case of Rome, between its internal decay and its susceptibility to invasion. By the fourth century, if not much before, Rome had lost its central value, the legacy of Greek culture, and was effectively existing for the sake of military and administrative purposes. As it overextended itself, creating a huge standing army and a bloated military budget, the middle class began to disappear, and there was a reciprocal, reinforcing interaction between internal decadence and instability on the one hand, and external vulnerability on the other. In the case of the United States, the nation no longer stands for the enlightenment tradition, but rather for military-political hegemony and the total commodification of life. What is likely to happen, as obtained in the case of Rome, is increasing budgetary appropriations for military expenditures, leaving (in the American case) fewer and fewer funds for education, the rebuilding of cities, health care and social welfare.... In addition, as in contemporary America, the new 'intellectual' efforts were designed to cater to the masses, until intellectual life was brought down to the lowest common denominator. This, according to the great historian of Rome, MI Rostovtzeff, was the most conspicuous feature in the development of the ancient world during the imperial age: primitive forms of life finally drowning out the higher ones.... The parallels with contemporary America are not identical, but they do seem disturbing. The factors of hype, ignorance, potential bankruptcy and extreme social inequality are overwhelming, and they make a kind of spiritual death - apathy and classicist formalism - ultimately unavoidable...."
Waiting for the barbarians
A once-great empire, Rome fell into catastrophic cultural and economic decline.
Morris Berman on chilling parallels with modern America
London Guardian, 6 October 2001

"Almost before the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney called together a group of players to chart out a strategy for the post-Cold War world. The names should be familiar, because they run the present administration: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. The goal was to 'shape' the world in order to, in the words of another team member, Zalmay Khalizad (now special envoy to Afghanistan), 'preclude the rise of another global rival for the indefinite future.' In his book 'From Containment to Global Leadership?' Khalizad argues that it is 'vital' to prevent such a rival from developing and 'to be willing to use force if necessary.'.."
Are we on the road to war?
The San Francisco Examiner, 19 April 2002

"The cynical purpose of declaring war on terrorism, like the abortive 'war on drugs', is to silence such critics [of American support for terrorism] and harness emotion to the cause of policy. It puts reason in quarantine. We should therefore be aware how thin is the veneer of democratic culture."
Christians should not charge into 'holy war'
Simon Jenkins, London Times, 19 September 2001

Footnote on United Airlines Flight 93:
The remarks from Vice President Cheney regarding the fourth hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are despite suggestions from some quarters that this plane was shot down by the military after the passengers staged a mutiny, although there were also suggestions of an in-flight bomb. One passenger reported an explosion on board over his cell phone.

This fourth plane had a delayed take-off of 40 minutes. It appears to have been the only plane that was subject to a concerted passenger revolt, and therefore the only one with some improved chance of passenger and hijacker witness survival on the day. It took the Pentagon almost two hours to confirm whether the plane had been shot down or not. However, according to one US newspaper report "Controllers have also learned that an F-16 fighter closely pursued hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 until it crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania, the employee said. Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said. 'He must've seen the whole thing,' the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash."

Another US press report states "An official at the Cleveland Air Traffic Control Center in Oberlin, Ohio, which tracked Flight 93 as it turned in the sky and tracked eastward from the Cleveland area, said 'no comment' when asked if there was any record of a second plane over the crash site. 'That's something that the FBI is working on and I cannot talk about,' said Richard Kettel, head of tower operations at the Cleveland center. He spoke shortly before the FBI announced it had no evidence of a second jet.". Controllers throughout the US have since said very little to the Press about the events of Sept 11, and those who have done so appear to have spoken only on condition of anonymity.

A missile strike would not necessarily destroy a plane but would cause it to crash. The Korean air liner brought down by Russian air to air missiles in 1983 had cockpit voice recordings by the crew for two more minutes after the sound of the first explosion was heard. Debris from the Sept 11 Pennsylvania aircraft was found between 6 and 8 miles from the crash site, consistent with the reports of an initial explosion. One local newspaper report stated that "authorities initially insisted crash debris could not have traveled over a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the crash". They later changed their view, with an FBI 'special agent' saying it was due to the 9 knot wind that day. Initially the FBI had said a shoot down was a possibility. The plane hit the ground at 10.10 am approximately 15 minutes after the President decided to give shoot down authority (on the basis of the Washington Post report 27 January).

The Washington Post 28 January 2002 confirmed that by Sept 12 the Bush Administration was suddenly producing intelligence reports which "specifically identified Capitol Hill and the White House as targets on Sept. 11" - presumably one of which the fourth plane may have successfully struck had it not been for its delayed take off.

However, those 'intelligence' reports were produced within around a mere 24 hours of the hijackings, despite the fact that as the planes prepared for take-off at the start of the previous day the intelligence services claimed to have had no specific information on them ('But for all [the Director of the CIA's] fears, intelligence officials could never pinpoint when or where an attack might hit...', Washington Post 27 January).

So on the day of the hijackings it was not even known, so it is claimed, which cities were to come under attack. A day later however, it appears, the US government was claiming that it suddenly had information on the precise buildings, never mind the towns, that were to be targets. In the case of Flight 93 this claim is made despite the fact that the plane concerned hadn't even managed to get beyond Pennsylvania, let alone as far as the outskirts of Washington.

So that's really not at all bad for a day's intelligence work in the circumstances.

It sure is a pity that the days, weeks and months of previous intelligence gathering prior to Sept 11 had apparently not been so informative, although it was still good enough for Pentagon staff to decide to cancel their own flights for Sept 11 'because of security concerns' according to Newsweek Magazine 24 September. It sure is a pity, too, that there have been no al-Qaeda cell busts in the US since Sept 11either. No, as the Director of the FBI Robert Mueller put it in a speech quoted in the Miami Herald 30 April 2002 ''In our [seven month] investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.''

So it rather looks like Sept 12 was just the one lucky day in the year for intelligence gathering.

Certainly this last minute 'intelligence' on additional targets released on Sept 12 would have provided very useful 'public-relations' cover if evidence of a US military shoot down subsequently came to light. However, given the general delays in scrambling fighter aircraft on the 11th, it would not have been necessary to even consider introducing this fall-back position had Flight 93 left the airport on time.

Nonetheless, even if deliberate delay of emergency response measures was taking place on Sept 11 there comes a point when you would have to scramble fighters if evidence of the obstruction was not to become too obvious. After the hit on the Pentagon even members of the public overseas following events live via the broadcast media were saying Flight 93 had to be 'taken out'.

However, for the purpose of bolstering post-attack support for the Bush Administration it would be much better from a PR 'no-fly-in-the-ointment' point of view if the plane had crashed of its own accord. According to the official line that's what happened to the plane.

"Vreeland’s warning note [of the impending attacks on America], sealed and placed in the sole custody of Canadian jailers on Aug. 11 or 12, also contained the ominous statement, 'Let one happen. Stop the rest.' That document was entered into evidence in Vreeland’s extradition hearing on Oct. 7, 2001. At that time Canadian authorities acknowledged that the letter had been written a month before the attacks."
Vreeland in Safe House, All Canadian Charges Dropped, Temporary Refugee Status Granted
March 15, 2002 10:50 AM PST (FTW)

"The main [September 11] suspect [Zacarias Moussaoui] in US custody .... had been picked up by immigration authorities in August but the FBI refused to let its field agents search his laptop computer which contained clues as to the September 11 mission....."
'FBI arrogance and secrecy dismays US'
London Times, 3 Nov 2001

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

"The United States is considering the unprecedented diplomatic gesture of 'unsigning' the treaty that establishes a new International Criminal Court (ICC) in protest against its imminent ratification... US opposition to the new court, which is likely to start work in its temporary buildings in The Hague next year, puts it at loggerheads with its European allies and most of the rest of the world.... Republicans in both houses of Congress have sponsored legislative amendments to retaliate against allies who ratify the tribunal by cutting off military aid or even to authorise the use of force to free any American held by the court."
['Let's bomb the Hague Dubya, before it throws up too much about what we up to in Yugoslavia', nlpwessex]"
'US rejects world court for fear of partisan lawsuits'
London Times, 30 March 2002

"Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation [as on Sept 11] with 4 hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."
Horst Ehmke, former coordinator of West German secret services
"Euro Intel Experts Dismiss 'War On Terrorism' As Deception"
American Free Press - 4 Dec 2001

"...an online poll taken Wednesday by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution showed an astonishingly high level of support for the Georgia Democrat's [Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney] conspiracy theory - with nearly half of those responding to the unscientific survey saying the White House had a heads-up on the attacks. 'Are you satisfied the Bush administration had no advanced warning of the Sept. 11 attacks?" asked www.ajc.com. According to the most recent results available, a full 46 percent of those responding agreed with the statement, 'No, I think officials knew it was coming.' Another two percent were receptive to McKinney's call for a probe, agreeing with the statement, 'I'm not sure. Congress should investigate.' A slim majority - 52 percent - said they were fully satisfied that Bush officials had no advanced warning. Though over 23,000 Atlanta Journal-Consitution readers had responded by midafternoon, the poll has been mysteriously withdrawn from the paper's web site. But the web site FreeRepublic.com tracked results throughout the morning, with posters there encouraging visitors to vote against McKinney."
Poll Shocker: Nearly Half Support McKinney's 9-11 Conspiracy Theory
NewMax.com 17 April 2002

t r u t h o u t 911 Probe | Petition / Poll
"Do you support a thorough public investigation of the events leading up to the September 11th attacks that would include but not be limited to, what warnings and information the executive branch of our government received about the attacks prior to September 11th., and full disclosure of all contracts awarded to all private entities with direct contacts to the executive branch as a result of the attacks?"
Cast your vote - click here

"I wish I could take all of you with me on the rest of this tour [of the launch of my book] so that you don’t sit here in San Francisco going, Oh, it’s just us. It’s not just you. Everybody gets it. Everybody’s dying to come out and say something. Everybody wants the questions answered. It should come as no surprise. The majority of this country didn’t want him for president. You should take heart in that. Think about that. The majority, the vast majority, 154 million voting-age Americans either didn’t vote for him or didn’t vote at all – they didn’t want him. 154 million out of 200 million voters. He has no mandate. He has no support."
Michael Moore, Commonwealth Club of California, 4 March 2002

"Public satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. is at its lowest point of George W. Bush's presidency..... a Bloomberg News poll shows. The number of voting-age Americans saying they're satisfied with the country's direction was 46 percent, down from 51 percent when Bush's term began and 15 points below December's peak of 61 percent."
U.S. Mood Hits Low Point of Bush's Term, Bloomberg Poll Finds
Top World News, 8 May 2002

"Tony Blair has no plans to change the chain of command system under which he has to give personal authorisation to the RAF to shoot down a hijacked commercial airliner threatening London or other British cities, a government source said yesterday. After the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the Government reviewed its own special emergency alert system, which provides a 'fast and robust' link between the military and the Prime Minister, and concluded that no changes were needed....The chain of command in Britain for a decision requiring prime ministerial authorisation in the event of a hijacked airliner would involve a four-stage process, but officials emphasised that Mr Blair would be in a position to make a judgement in a matter of minutes. Using the emergency communications systems — 'not a telephone call' — [Air Chief Marshal Sir John Day] would then go up the chain of command to Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence, and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff. Tornado air crews on highest readiness for defending British airspace from 'enemy' aircraft can take off within five to ten minutes of being scrambled and would already be in the air, heading for the hijacked plane, by the time Mr Hoon was in touch with the Prime Minister. The government source said the Prime Minister was always instantly contactable under the special communications system wherever he was, at home or overseas. An RAF source said that even if an airliner was hijacked at Heathrow and then turned east towards London, there would still be time to act.... In the event of a hijacked airliner approaching Britain from the Channel or the North Sea, ground-based and airborne air defence radars would plot the flight path and give an indication of any sudden divergence towards an unexpected destination."
Blair Controls Response to Hijack
London Times, 29 Sept 2001

"Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. We had such facts too. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up.”
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Airforce, Anatoli Kornukov
Pravda online: 18:50 hrs 12th Sept 2001

"... Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It's home to Air Force One, the President's plane. It's home base for two combat-ready squadrons of jet interceptors mandated to ensure the safety of the U.S. capital. Andrews is only 12 miles from the White House.... Throughout the northeastern United States are many air bases. But that morning no interceptors respond in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which have the longest lead time and are 12 miles from the White House. Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the 'Incompetence Theory.' Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask - and other media need to ask - if there were 'stand down' orders."
'What really happened on Sept. 11th?'
Barrie Zwicker, Straight Goods, 27 January 2002

"On September 11th the squadrons there [at Andrews Air Force Base] were : The 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, equipped with F-16s The 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A, equipped with F/A-18s. This information was on the Web site of the base on September 11th. On September 12th, Andrews chose to update its Web site. I find it odd that after the update there's no mention of the F-16 and F-18 fighters. The base becomes, according to the website, home to a transport squadron only. Yet at 6:30 the evening of September 11th NBC Nightly News, along with many outlets, reported [*]: 'It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly … a protective cover over Washington, D.C.' ...."
'What really happened on Sept. 11th?'
Barrie Zwicker, Straight Goods, 27 January 2002
[*] including as reported in the UK's Daily Telegraph 16 Sept 2001

"Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft....When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
The Boston Globe, Saturday 15 September 2001

"U.S. inaction was all the more astonishing because the same story [in the Boston Globe] had [NORAD spokesman] Snyder admitting that 'fighters routinely intercept aircraft.' So why were no fighters dispatched to intercept planes on an extraordinary day like Sept. 11?.... Happily, the war against the Taliban managed to push these questions out of the papers. For now."
New York Press, 12 Dec 2001

"U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday.... Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport..... the reports suggest that Western governments were aware that terrorists might one day use a hijacked airplane as a suicide weapon--as they did Sept. 11 in attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.......The Genoa warning was disclosed last week by Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini..... In any case, the possibility of suicide hijackings has been known to U.S. counter-terrorism officials for several years...... In 1996, a terrorist captured in Manila told Philippine police that Al Qaeda planned to hijack 11 U.S. airliners simultaneously and to fly a plane into CIA headquarters near Washington."
Los Angeles Times, 27 September 2001

"The author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks...The FAA confirmed that it stepped up security measures concerning Mr Rushdie but refused to give a reason.”
Rusdie's Air Ban
London Times, 27 September 2001

"On Sept. 10.... a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
Newsweek 24 September 2001

"In a slew of attacks in Europe, Africa and the United States during the 1990s linked to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden evidence would inevitably turn up after the fact revealing how the plans were laid, said terrorism expert Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council aide in the Clinton administration."
Miami Herald 30 April 2002

"...[The hijackers used] meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works... In our [seven month] investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot....."
Remarks prepared for delivery by Robert S. Mueller III,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, CA
April 19, 2002

"New evidence linking the owner of the Venice, Florida, flight school that trained Mohamed Atta to the Central Intelligence Agency surfaced last month. The new evidence adds to existing indications that Mohamed Atta and his terrorist cadre's flight training in this country was part of a so-far unacknowledged U.S. government intelligence operation which had ultimately tragic consequences for thousands of civilians on September 11. Far from merely being negligent or asleep at the switch—the thrust so far of allegations expected to be aired at joint Senate and House Select Committee hearings this month—the accumulating evidence suggests the CIA was not just aware of the thousands of Arab student pilots who began pouring into this country several years ago to attend flight training, but was running the operation for still-unexplained reasons."
The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?
Ron Callari, Albion Monitor
February 28, 2002

"I am troubled by the Associated Press report that an FBI agent had raised concerns before September 11 about Arabs training in U.S. flight schools. It is imperative that we learn exactly what information was contained in the FBI report, to whom it was sent and what actions were taken in response.... Shortly after September 11 I wrote to the Attorney General and to the FBI Director to ensure the preservation of all records, such as this memorandum, relating to information obtained by the FBI prior to September 11. ...Our bipartisan request was blocked by Senate Minority Leader Lott, and it is unfortunate that partisan pique is limiting the Senate Judiciary Committee as it fulfills its oversight responsibilities. The revelations in the AP report only underscore the need for a thorough and constructive congressional examination of the facts."
Reaction of Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, To The AP Report
On A Pre-Sept. 11 FBI Memorandum On Flight Schools
Truthout, 3 May 2002

"FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11....the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year".
FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
London Guardian, 7 Nov 2001

"For sixty decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground.....To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes, and within one hour to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.....What has gone on, and goes on, in the name of intelligence services, are true crimes.... CIA chief Allen Dulles once said: 'In case of doubt, I would even lie to the Congress!'..... I know a lot of people, including very influential ones, who agree with me, but only in whispers, never publicly.... Where this all comes together, the American intelligence services are not far away....The CIA, in the state interests of the U.S., does not have to abide by any law in interventions abroad, is not bound by international law; only the President gives orders...."
Andreas von Bülow Interview:
Former German Minister of Research and Technology
Interview published in the German daily newspaper Der Tagesspiegel on 2002-01-13.

"Mullah Haji Abdul Samat Khaksar, the No 2 Taliban official in U.S. custody [ in Afghanistan], has been waiting months for the CIA to talk to him. The former Taliban deputy interior minister says he has valuable information for the U.S. - and may be able to help locate former Taliban leader Mullah Omar.... but no senior intelligence official has come for a full interview. The CIA will not comment... he says he has sent five letters to the US embassy in Kabul offering to pass on information about al-Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan..."
'The Taliban Guy the CIA Won't Question'
Time Magazine, 25 February 2002, European print edition, p21

"The CIA is also taking over roles normally reserved for the military. In the War against Terror, CIA officers are believed to have spearheaded the campaign against al-Qaeda in the tribal regions of Pakistan because the operation was so secret that regular troops could not be used."
Mossad pioneers changing role of 'spooks'
London Times, 1 May 2002

"The Dutch government has released a report that details the alliance between the United States and the Islamic effort to help Bosnian Muslims. The report determined that the United States provided a green light to groups on the State Department list of terrorist organizations to operate in Bosnia. This included the Lebanese-based Hezbollah. For the European Union, the U.S. effort marks a stain that calls into question Washington's war on terrorism....."
U.S. gave green light to terrorists in Bosnia
Yugoslavia policy helped build base in Europe for Hezbollah
WorldNet Daily 24 April 2002

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro."
U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
ABCNews 1 May 2001

Note: the National Security Archive at George Washington University has made available a scanned copy of the chief component of 'Operation Northwoods'. This is a document entitled 'Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba' which was presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. This document can be accessed via: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ . Below are some extracts from the document. The most interesting reading is contained in an appendix headed: 'Pretexts to justify US military intervention in Cuba'.

APPENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, CUBA PROJECT
Subject: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)

This plan, incorporating projects selected from the attached suggestions... would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States.... The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere... In as much as the ultimate objective is overt military intervention, it is recommended that primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the plan for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

ANNEX TO APPENDIX TO ENCLOSURE A
PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA

1. ....Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasised. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo [US military base on Cuba] to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces....
3. .... We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.....We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters..... The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to 'evacuate' remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington..... Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government....
5. A 'Cuban-based, Castro-supported' filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring nation......
6. Use of MIG type [i.e as used by Cuba] aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complimentary actions. A F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact.... reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.
7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba....
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. ......[It would be arranged in such a way as to] allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to 'sell' the incident.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack...."

ENCLOSURE B
FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM

2. ......'.....determination that a credible internal revolt [in Cuba] is impossible of attainment during the next 9-10 months will require a decision by the United States to develop a Cuban 'provocation' as justification for positive US military action....."

"Bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, according to The Guardian of London. The warnings to the Taliban originated at a four-day meeting of senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July. The meetings took place under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan....The U.S. government’s primary objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime in order to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia, the French authors [of the book 'Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth'] wrote. Until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime 'as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia,' from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean, they said ....When the Taliban refused to accept U.S. conditions, 'this rationale of energy security changed into a military one.' 'The Americans indicated to us that in case the Taliban does not behave and in case Pakistan also doesn’t help us to influence the Taliban, then the United States would be left with no option but to take an overt action against Afghanistan,' said Niaz Naik, a former foreign minister of Pakistan, who attended the meetings...'At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,’ ' Brisard said in an interview in Paris....."
European Spooks Say Mideast Terrorists Needed State Support
American Free Press (undated web article)

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin..... The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. ....he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban."
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
BBC Online, 18 September 2001

"From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.....The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day.... "
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS,
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 12 February 1998 - evidence by Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation (US oil company)

"... The USA needs military bases in Central Asia and in the Caucasus for a short-term period, as a subsidiary base for an offensive against Iraq. As for a long-term objective, the USA plans to use the bases as a political, economic and probably military pressure on the Central Asiatic countries with a view to get control over oil and gas that are abundant in these regions."
FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS TO BE USED IN OFFENSIVE AGAINST IRAQ
Pravda Online, 2 May 2002

"Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of almost every nation throughout history... Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. .... Turkey's support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karuk oilfield..."
US Republican Congressman, Ron Paul, 29 Nov 2001

"Did September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta meet with an Iraqi agent in the months before the terrorist attack? Last fall, the Czech government provided the CIA with intelligence suggesting that just such a rendezvous had taken place.... The story of the 'Iraqi connection' spread rapidly through Washington. Advocates of U.S. action to topple Saddam Hussein seized on the account to bolster their arguments.... When Vice President Dick Cheney flew to the Middle East last month, a 'senior U.S. official' on the trip referred to 'meetings that have been made public' between Atta and Iraqi intelligence. 'This story has taken on a life of its own,' says a U.S. intelligence official. It shouldn’t have. NEWSWEEK has learned that a few months ago, the Czechs quietly acknowledged that they may have been mistaken about the whole thing. U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials now believe that Atta wasn’t even in Prague at the time the Czechs claimed..... The story behind the purported Atta-Iraqi meeting is nonetheless an illuminating window into the murky world of intelligence in the war on terrorism—and how easily facts can become distorted for political purposes."
The Phantom Link to Iraq
Newsweek Magazine, 28 April 2002

"The Pentagon has set up a covert unit to wage an information war that could include feeding false stories to foreign media, according to a report yesterday...In the 1970s CIA disinformation was picked up from the foreign media by American news organisations..... Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman, would not discuss the Office of Strategic Influence. "
Pentagon 'ready to lie' to win War on Terror
London Times, February 20, 2002

"The Nixon staff lied to one another and to the President..... Two of the most startling examples of the culture of deception occurred at summit meetings Nixon had with the Soviets and the Chinese. In both cases, Nixon and his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, asked the foreign leaders to join them in lies to deceive Nixon’s own Secretary of State, William Rogers...."
Inside the White House That Was Built of Lies - Time Magazine 5 Nov 2001

"In Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF [friend or foe identification], jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further questions asked. This was clearly an inside job.... Bush [Jnr] doesn't realize he is being manipulated by people who understand geopolitics. He is not leading but being led. All he can do is think in terms of the wanted-dead-or-alive culture, which is how Hollywood conditions the masses to think and act..... Bush [Jnr] follows Bush [Snr]..."
General Hameed Gul, former director general of the Pakistani Intelligence Services ISI and previously a close ally of America working hand in hand with the CIA.
United Press International, Sep. 26, 2001

"During the two-and-a-half-hour lecture held at a Holiday Inn, Ruppert detailed the mounting and irrefutable evidence proving U.S. government foreknowledge of 9-11.... Ruppert detailed evidence that supports the conclusion that, while Israeli intelligence sources had learned of impending attacks, they promptly informed the U.S., which did nothing to stop them. Ruppert stressed there is no evidence to suggest Israel perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. Ruppert made it clear he believes Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government may be blackmailing the Bush Administration, because the Israelis have evidence that the Americans had foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks and did nothing to stop them. This blackmail, according to Ruppert, is what has given Sharon the leverage he needs to 'act like an 800-pound gorilla in Palestine.'.... Everyone in the audience stayed for the entire lecture, and most stayed in their seats for an additional hour-and-a-half to listen and participate in the 'questions and answers' part of the event. Ruppert said after the lecture he 'was pleasantly surprised that the questions indicated a general consensus that the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East was secondary to the broader issues of 9-11.'....."
Ruppert Addresses Private, Mostly Muslim Group in New York Reports Israel Did Not Perpetrate 9-11 Attacks
Long Island, N.Y., April 30, 2002 (FTW)

" War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. ....... The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. ..... I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. ... Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

"My fellow Americans.... America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.... America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals."
President Eisenhower, United States of America, Farewell Address, 1961

Come On You Brave Journalists!
It is no longer politically incorrect to criticise George Bush - Really!
The longer you leave it the more you are going to look like 'stupid white men'

No1 Best Seller in the US this spring and as featured on the BBC UK News Home Page!
'Stupid White Men' - click here for BBC report

"I felt exactly the same about [Bush] on 12th September as I had on the 10th."
Michael Moor, Author of 'Stupid White Men', BBC report 29 March 2002
Michael Moore: Home page - click here

Michael Moore Addresses the Prestigious Commonwealth Club of California, 4 March 2002
This club is the oldest and largest public affairs forum in the US. Its status is such that it was also addressed by the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, 19 April and by President Bush on 30 April

"It’s like with the whole Enron thing. The Republicans on all the Republican networks: 'Well, the Democrats took money, too.' Well, yeah. For every $90 the Republicans took from Enron the Democrats maybe got ten dollars. You can buy them cheap. They’re like the Yugo of politics. Occasionally they will do good things; it will run sometimes. But generally, the reason the Republicans get all the money from Enron is they know how to make money. That’s why they’re all millionaires.... I started going to the jump page [of the Newspapers], and on the jump page we learned that the bin Laden family financed George W.’s first oil venture in Texas, back when Daddy got him in the business, before the baseball team, in an oil venture called Arbusto.... When George Sr. goes to Saudi Arabia in the last ten years he stays at the bin Laden palace. Some will say, Mike, you can’t just paint all the bin Ladens with one big brush stroke. You can’t blame them for the one bad apple in the family. In this article Jane Mayer goes on to show how there are other members of the bin Laden family who have been funding bin Laden and visiting him and keeping the connections going. It’s all very strange in terms of how this thing has come together. The fact is there has been this financial connection between these two families for some years. And that’s not being discussed in the media. I would like to ask some questions about that..... Why is it while all the planes were grounded after September 11th did you, George W. Bush, allow only one plane to fly around America, a private Saudi jet that went around to four or five cities in this country and picked up two dozen members of the bin Laden family and their associates and scoot them out of the country over the objections of the FBI, who wanted to interrogate the family members? But Bush said, No, you will ask no questions of the bin Ladens. Well, usually in a murder investigation, the police, when they can’t find the murderer, like to ask the family members a few questions. What do you know? Who do you know? Where could he be? What do you think? Usually that’s how it works, very basic police work. No. The FBI was told, No, you can’t do that. It sounds like many of you are hearing this for the first time. This is not the Michael Moore black helicopter website that I’m quoting from. You can read this story in the November 12th New Yorker magazine in an article by Jane Mayer, where she goes through and talks about a whole bunch of stuff about the bin Laden and Bush connections and specifically why this plane was allowed to fly around the country and pick up the bin Ladens. Why? I would like to ask that question...... I’m not drawing any conclusions from this. I don’t have the answers. But as a citizen I think I should be allowed to ask these questions. I think other people should ask these questions.... If you dig into Enron and you see what’s really going on there, when you see how this one company and the executives of this company bought and paid for this administration – they were the number-one funders of Bush – what do we have in the White House? We have Ken Lay in there handpicking the head of the regulatory agency that oversees Enron. We have an Arthur Andersen attorney who is now the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission overseeing the stock prices that are supposed to be legit on the stock market. We have an Enron vice president who is a secretary of the Army. We have another Enron lawyer who also ran for office in Texas and took Enron money. He’s now the White House counsel. The list goes on and on and on and on. "
Michael Moore, Commonwealth Club of California, 4 March 2002

"A newspaper aimed at providing news of the war in Afghanistan is to be launched this month. Its editors argue that the mainstream media in the US are not providing a full picture of the war and its effects. War Times, produced in San Francisco, will make its first bi-weekly appearance on April 12. It will be published in English and Spanish and will be distributed throughout the US."
Guardian, 30 March 2002

World Peace Offered From Hiroshima

Japanese Academics and Politicians
Applaud Vital Initiative

'Global Association of Scientists for Peace'
Formed at
Government Hosted Conference

PREVENTING TERRORISM
A Scientifically Validated Approach to Prevent
Terrorism and Ensure U.S. Society and World Peace

Terrorist reprisals are all but certain now that the U.S. has launched its military campaign to 'eradicate' terrorism. For this reason, a proven solution to terrorism is especially urgent. Please follow the link below, read carefully, and act decisively. There is no other effective defense against terrorism.
Please click here